1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for adding the following 2.3 judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, the reasoning for the court of first instance’s ruling is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendants asserted that ① failure to perform their obligations under the above construction contract is due to the fact that the supplementary intervenor failed to fully provide the drawings, etc. necessary for the manufacture of the product, not due to the reasons attributable to the Defendant company, and ② the supplementary intervenor notified the cancellation immediately without demanding the implementation thereof for a considerable period of time, and thus, the termination of the contract by the supplementary intervenor is not effective, even though the plaintiff is too excessive and it is not possible to accept the plaintiff’s claim because the supplementary intervenor paid

The statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and 9 are insufficient to recognize that the failure to perform the above construction contract was caused by a cause attributable to the supplementary intervenor or did not demand performance by setting a considerable period of time as alleged by the Defendants. Rather, according to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 7, 14 through 18, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, and Eul's evidence Nos. 2 (including serial numbers), and witness D's testimony and oral argument, the supplementary intervenor may cancel or terminate the above construction contract after prior notice at any time (Article 7 of the Evidence No. 2) where it is evident that the supplementary intervenor is unable to perform the contract, according to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 7, 14 through 18, and Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 14 through 2, and Eul's evidence No. 1, 2013.